I am the author of several books on technology and innovation. My new book, "Big Bang Disruption," co-authored with Paul F. Nunes, is now available. My earlier books include the New York Times best-seller, “Unleashing the Killer App" and "The Laws of Disruption."

U.N. Agency Reassures: We Just Want to Break the Internet, Not Take it Over

But the Secretary-General later acknowledged that some proposals would in fact involve the ITU in internet numbering and addressing. “These are preliminary proposals,” he said, “and I suspect that someone else will bring another counterproposal to this, we will analyze it and say yes, this is going beyond, and we’ll stop it.”

Devils in the Details

More to the point, Dr. Touré’s overly-narrow definition of Internet governance leaves out the critical work of standards-setting groups, such as the IETF and the W3C, that keep the connections between networks up and running and set standards for key website protocols.

It also leaves out agreements between networks that promise to transport the traffic of their respective users, usually under informal and unpaid arrangements known as “settlement-free peering.” According to ISOC, settlement-free peering is and has long been the dominant model for network interconnection, a core component of the Internet.

The companies are hamstrung by EU regulations on pricing and unbundling of their assets, which ETNO claims is driving its members broke. Their plan is to use WCIT to resurrect the old international long distance model, enabling them to extract revenue from high-volume websites and other Internet services. Most of these services, including video providers such as YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu, operate outside the EU.

Touré has repeatedly endorsed ETNO’s idea that the revised treaty should mandate new traffic management and network financing schemes, though he took no position on the specifics of ETNO’s proposal. “It is easy to criticize, but ETNO has the merit of putting its view on the table,” he told Bloomberg. “I’m sure we will find a common ground.”

In the Columbia talk, Touré made clear what kind of common ground he has in mind. He called for “principles” to be embedded in the treaty that “will encourage broadband roll-out and investment.” It is crucial, he said, that the treaty is changed to ensure “sufficient revenues for operators to deploy broadband infrastructure.”

And despite the ITU’s repeated claims that is has no interest in “global Internet governance,” there are reportedly dozens of undisclosed proposals circulating in advance of the meeting that would extend the ITU’s authority to include IP communications.

Some leaked proposals, for example, would authorize member nations, with U.N. blessing, to inspect and censor incoming and outgoing Internet traffic on the premise of monitoring criminal behavior, filtering spam, or protecting national security.

The most overbroad of these amendments to the treaty are coming from countries including Russia, China, Iran and others that have long been anxious about their own citizens gaining access to unfiltered information and organizing protests through social networks.

Curbing the open Internet, indeed, is a priority for these countries that goes well beyond the WCIT process. China recently hosted its first annual “Internet Roundtable for Emerging Countries,” attended by Russia, Brazil, India and South Africa.

The meeting reached agreement on several worrisome principles. In a summary prepared by the Information Technology Industry Council, which has carefully observed international developments, the participants agree that “The Internet must be managed by governments, with a particular focus on the influence of social networks on society.”

The ITU itself, meanwhile, is stepping up the rhetoric in its campaign to defend the transfer of at least some Internet oversight from today’s multi-stakeholder process to the U.N. Dr. Touré, for example, says that he hopes the WCIT negotiations will address issues “of real import,” including Internet security.

But “security,” in ITU jargon, is a loaded term, relating more to perceived threats to national security than to the security of network communications.

In that regard, the ITU has become dangerously close to associating itself with the overtly repressive goals of Russia. Last year, at a meeting between Dr. Touré and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Putin was characteristically blunt about his country’s aspirations for the ITU. Putin told Dr. Touré that he was keen on “establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capability of the International Telecommunications Union.”

A Flat Foot and a Tin Ear

Put these developments together and you have a recipe for trouble, one the international community is at last waking up to.

The ITU has clearly been caught flat-footed by criticism originating from all corners of the globe over the upcoming treaty negotiations, much as Congress found itself blindsided earlier this year by protests by U.S. Internet users over proposed new copyright legislation (SOPA and PIPA) that would have greatly damaged the architecture and culture of the Internet.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Larry, thank you again for putting this important discussion out front here on Forbes. BTW how does a Mali national choose to leave Mali and travel[5454 km] to St Petersburg Russia for a masters degree and subsequently yet another 1000 km to Moscow for a PhD Direct from his biography , Dr Touré holds a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from the Technical Institute of Electronics and Telecommunications of Leningrad, and a PhD from the University of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics of Moscow [Thesis topics???]. He also is a Member and Officer of the Golden Order of Honour of the International Telecommunication Academy, Moscow, Russian Federation. Is a KGB operative running the ITU??? You might think. The UN is a joke, 80% of its initiatives are useless endeavours. As for the high handedness of the communiques from the ITU….you are correct a 19th century regulator attempting to become relevant in the 21st Century. The concerns are valid and the ITU needs to be blown up, this farce of back room dealings , secret agendas, total lack in transparency $$$ member fees, this isn’t a UN Agency but more like a Cartel being run through the auspices of the United Nations. Perhaps like the war on drugs fights Crime related to Drug Cartels, A 21st Century battle should be launched to eliminate the ITU Cartel and expose its agenda to the world. The UN is handcuffed by its own ineptitude, lacks 21st century thinking and hides behind diplomatic protocols and its narcissistic superiority derived from the 19th century notions it was founded on. The Internet is the most relevant globally inclusive technology humankind has invented, it now seems Hamadoun Toure and others of his ilk want to run it like a casino ….the house rule and always wins. This certainly, despite the protests of the ITU and its cartel members, is a disturbing development that will not serve the 21st century thinking global community in any manner. whatsoever…how do we stop this ???

Let’s assume that the United States and the ITU hold their positions on internet governance steady. What is the likely outcome? Does the ITU have the ability to adjust internet governance in the face of US opposition?

Good question. If the treaty is revised but the U.S. refuses to ratify it, then those countries that do ratify it will apply their own rules to the Internet, and the likely outcome is a much-more splintered and inefficient network. In the case of the ETNO proposals, if they are approved then U.S.n network operators will be forced to negotiate “sending party network pays” agreements with carriers in signatory countries regardless of whether the U.S. ratifies or not. More splintering, and the possibility of Internet trade war.

Even if the WCIT meeting turns out as a non-event, more to the point, the process already shows that the UN, repressive governments, and economic interests are willing to align to meet their separate and related goals in taming the Internet. So even if common sense prevails in Dubai, this will hardly be the end of the story.

Excellent article. The USG seems intent on the notion that it will have to give away something even to escape Dubai relatively unscathed. The question, of course, is what? And even if we get 100 percent of what we want (essentially, the status quo), Malcolm Johnson et al. will find a way to spin this along the lines of “delegates endorse ITU world domination” or some such. It appears to be a ‘no-win situation’ situation, for Western interests at least. It’s going to be virtual hand-wringing time come December.

The internet, with all its flaws, is still one of the best expressions of the freedom in the United States and it is certain that no other country offers the freedoms that the United States does, even after many years of growing intrusion of the federal government into our lives.

We ought to do everything that we can to maintain our freedom, including absolutely putting down any and all efforts by any governmental entity to regulate the internet, remembering that all the reasons given to regulate it are self serving on the part of the would be regulators and never are truly for the benefit of the people. It’s sad for the people who live in restrictive countries like China or Russia, but I’d rather be cut off from communication with those countries than come under rules and regulations that they are responsible for promulgating. In fact, I would rather be restricted to internet service only in the United States than to lose one ounce of freedom.

And remember that no other country has anything like the following sentence in its founding documents: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Back to the point of your article: We, the US, ought not to be diplomatic about the WTIC at all, but instead we ought to label the WCIT for what it probably really is: a power grab. We ought to refuse any attempt to expand the powers of the ITC, and we ought to refuse to ratify any treaty or agreement that comes from the WCIT. As Nancy Reagan said concerning drugs, “Just say no.”